Freeman W. Sailor v. United States of Am., Louis R. Klotter v. United States, 462 F.2d 488 (6th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Freeman W. Sailor v. United States of Am., Louis R. Klotter v. United States, 462 F.2d 488 (6th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Murrell Bedford (ca3, 1975-07-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Murrell Bedford (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Cafero, 473 F.2d 489 (3d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 918 , 94 S.Ct. 2622 , 41 L.Ed.2d 223 (1974). "(I)f a prompt search would have disclosed nothing incriminating, and if during an unreasonable delay period the defendant brings incriminating evidence into or onto the premises which is seized as a result of the delayed search, the defendant has sustained legal prejudice." United States v. McClard, 333 F.Supp. 158, 166 (E.D.Ark.1971), aff'd, 462 F.2d 488 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 988 , 93 S.Ct. 345 , 34 L.Ed.2d 255 (1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Freeman W. Sailor
v.
United States of America, Louis R. Klotter v. United States
71-2029.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Apr 25, 1972.
462 F.2d 488
Published

462 F.2d 488

72-2 USTC P 16,061

Freeman W. SAILOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Louis R. KLOTTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 71-2029, 71-2057.

United States Court of Appeals,

Sixth Circuit.

April 25, 1972.

1

William S. Heidenberg, Louisville, Ky., Raymond F. Bossmeyer, Heidenberg & Bossmeyer, Louisville, Ky., on brief, for appellants.

2

Bruce I. Kogan, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen. Meyer Rothwacks, John P. Burke, Attys., Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief, George J. Long, U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., of counsel, for appellee.

3

Before CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges, and RUBIN, District Judge.[*]

ORDER

4

In these actions plaintiffs-appellants seek to recover taxes paid by them on the ground of alleged unconstitutionality of the federal wagering tax provisions, 26 U.S.C. Secs. 4411 and 4401, under which such taxes were assessed. The Court being fully advised by the record on appeal, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel has concluded that the contentions of the plaintiffs-appellants are without merit, and accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion filed by District Judge Rhodes Bratcher,

5

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court, 343 F.Supp. 1279 be and it hereby is affirmed.

*

Honorable Carl B. Rubin, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation